Great news for George Michael, Elton John and Justin Bieber – it seems the cure for male homosexuality is just around the corner.

Boffins in China have discovered that a chemical in the brain called serotonin controls sexual preference and that a mutation of the genetic makeup of some males means that they are born lacking the tryptophan hydroxylase 2 gene which is needed to produce serotonin. As a result, these mutants do not have the sexual preference for females that normal males have.

However, the Chinese brainboxes found that a preference for females can be "restored" by injecting serotonin into mutants' brains.

But is this medical breakthrough good news for normal men? There only a finite number of girls to go around, and with record-high rates of obesity amongst young women these days, competition for decent-looking women is already extremely fierce.

Now, gay men usually take care of their appearances by using male cosmetics and by spending a lot of money on clothes and haircuts and, ironically, this makes them very attractive to women, so, in the future, former gays that have received serotonin replacement treatment could be in the inside lane in the dash for gash.

No, serotonin replacement injections, or the "sh1t-stabbers' serum" as it might one day be called, should be banned by law as no good can possibly come of it for the majority of men.

Before I begin, thanks Brian for starting this debate. This should be interesting :)

First, for the sake of debate I will assume that the injections will work on humans.

With that out of the way, lets move to the contentions.

1. Brian's argument is that there are a limited supply of attractive women, so if there are less gays through the injections then competition increases.

There are three problems, though.

A. First, he assumes the injections will occur, and that gays will be receptive to such a treatment. In other words, that they want to change. However, to evaluate this, lets look at straight people. I ask all straight men and women reading this, do you want to be gay?

You all probably said no. This is because sexuality is an inherent part of us. Just like us straight dudes and dudettes are fine with out sexual preferences, gays are the same way. Guys turn them on, so they wont want to change for sexual reasons. Just as we all answered no to if we want to be gay, its sae to assume that if we asked all gays "do you want to be straight" we would get a similar response.

They also wont change for stigma reasons. Gays are becoming more and more accepted in society, with a huge movement being brought on for gay marriage. Its unlikely gays want to change to fit in society either, then.

Also, its doubtful that we will force the gays to undergo the treatment. Gay rights activists would be all over the place complaining about inhumane procedures.

Therefore, even if we develop the treatment, he cant access his argument here because very few people will actually undergo the injection. Therefore the vast majority of gays will remain and competition will stay stable. There's no reason to ban the injections if nobody will get them in the first place.

B. Even if a ton of gays turned straight with this treatment that adds serotonin, we can always compensate by extracting serotonin from straight guys!

C. Even if you don't buy any of that, you can turn this argument. If competition for women goes up, it could in fact turn into a "survival of the fittest", where only the hottest guys are able to get women and reproduce. I'm sure the women love that. But it would also benefit men because it encourages us to become stronger and better-looking.

2. Brian claims gays will have the inside track to the ladies because they wear makeup and all that.

A. But if they turned straight like my opponent indicates, they will cease to wear the makeup, cease to get the fancy haircuts, and cease the lingerie shopping, since that is no longer in their personality. So this impact isn't accessible either.

B. Extend my turn from above. Even if they have the inside track, that encourages the always-straight guys to be better, improving us as a species!

For these reasons, you cant look to the arguments my opponent has given.

Now, I would have given my own arguments, but honestly they were made in attacking his; no reason to ban what wont be used, and Darwinism. Therefore I will leave it at that and hand it over to my opponent.

With many thanks to Black Void for accepting this debate, I should like to respond to the objections raised as follows:

My opponent wrote "I ask all straight men and women reading this, do you want to be gay? You all probably said no."
I didn't say ‘no' – that's because I've always wanted to be a rich and famous television personality, but I've never been able to realise my dream because the gays and Jews have got the whole entertainment industry sewn up, and unless you are one of them you can't get your foot on the showbiz ladder. Now, if I was some sort of screaming homo I'd be living in a Beverly Hills mansion by now, but I'm not, which means my only option is to save up to become a Jew.

Similarly, it is not reasonable to suggest that all gay men are dangerously incompetent drivers: some of the more skilful mattress-munching motorists might be as good as an average woman behind the wheel of a car – and, conceivably, some homosexual gentlemen might even be good enough to race in Formula 1. However, there's never been a gay F1 driver because nobody would want to sponsor them, which is why an aspiring young racing driver who is "good with colours" would jump at the chance to get injections to cure his homosexuality.

My opponent then argued: "Even if a ton of gays turned straight with this treatment that adds serotonin, we can always compensate by extracting serotonin from straight guys!" But that would mean entertainers such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta would become straight and then be thrown out of the entertainment industry...I can see the merits in that argument but that also means straight men will become gay.

Then my opponent wrote: "Even if you don't buy any of that, you can turn this argument. If competition for women goes up, it could in fact turn into a "survival of the fittest", where only the hottest guys are able to get women and reproduce."

Yes, but would that be fair on all men who are fat, ginger or nerdy? I don't think so: they find it hard enough to get any action as it is.

Finally, my opponent claimed that once a gay man had been cured, he would no longer take an interest in dressing up in fancy clothes and combing his hair and all that. I'm not so sure: my opponent may be right, but so far, the scientists haven't done enough research in the matter to reach a definite conclusion.

No, all in all, I'd say it would be better to stay on the safe side and ban gay men from having serotonin injections.

1A. My opponent says that he may want to be gay so he can get into the entertainment industry. This doesn't necessarily respond to my argument that the vast majority of people wont want to change their sexuality. There are sure to be exceptions, but in general, these injections wont be used. Because this was never truly responded to, he can get any of his impacts now.

As for getting into the entertainment industry, you say you might want to be gay to get in. OK, so that's a reason to not ban these injections. You could use them to turn gay and become an actor! So why are you against my position?

But if that doesn't work, you could always pretend to be gay. Sounds crazy, but hey, it worked for Russell Brand (1). You also mentioned you could become a Jew to get in, so it looks like you've got two options anyway.

Next he mentions that its not reasonable to suggest that all gays are bad drivers. I agree, but being a bad driver and wanting to turn straight are two different things. Sexuality, as previously mentioned, is an inherent part of us while being a bad driver is not, and can be changed without injections, so this isn't a good comparison.

Furthermore, you claim that gays wont be sponsored as racers, so they would want to turn straight. While it makes sense in theory, it doesn't in application. Evan Darling is gay, yet he is still a Nascar driver (2)! So this isn't really true.

1B. Next, my opponent says my solution will get Tom Cruise and John Travolta thrown out of acting. First I must ask, is this a bad thing? Secondly, your argument supports my side because them getting thrown out would mean that there would be vacancies in the acting industry. You said you wanted to be in entertainment, so with them being kicked out you have an opportunity to replace them. So you should support my plan!

1C. My opponent says that a survival of the fittest scenario wouldn't be fair to fat people and nerds. First, he's never denied that my plan would improve humans as a species, so I am effectively making all of us better. Secondly, there are people that prefer the "large and lovely" guys over the others (3), so there is still plenty of fish in the water for these people.

2A. My opponent claims that scientists haven't reached a definite conclusion about whether losing gayness will also lose their feminine nature. However, I'm sure simple logic can show us that they will. I have yet to see a straight guy wear short shorts, while I have also yet to see a gay guy hunting deer and eating prime rib at the same time. So I'm pretty sure there is a correlation.

So in short, I have shown how my opponent's impacts wont happen, and even if they do, that they would be a good thing. So, to improve the human species through Darwinism, and to allow Brian to fulfill his dream of getting into the entertainment industry, vote Con!

So are the Chinese declaring that all depressed males are homosexual? We can obviously see this is not true - there are millions of depressed males. The Chinese are ridiculous and I can't wait for independent scientists outside of the country to give them a one two punch.